Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. Plaintiff-opposite party filed Eviction Suit No. 373 of 1989 against the defendant-petitioners for their eviction from the suit premises described in Schedule A to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were inducted in the suit premises as tenant in the year 1979 and they continued as such till 8.9.1987. Thereafter on 9.9.1987 a registered lease was executed between the parties for a period of 24 months, commencing from 9.9.1987 and ending on 8.9.1989. Before expiry of the said lease, the defendants did not serve any notice to the plaintiff exercising their right conferred under Section 18 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' for short) and after expiry of the lease on 8.9.1989 they did not vacate the house. The plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 3.10.1989 to the defendants requesting them to vacate the suit premises. But they did not vacate the same and, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for eviction under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act.
2. The defendants contested the suit. According to them, the suit premises was let out to the defendant No. 1 more or less 20 years back and from time to time the rate of rent was illegally enhanced by giving threats. In the year 1987 the plaintiff has by practising fraud and coercion got the lease deed registered for a fixed period of two years, though the defendant
No. 1 continued to be month to month tenant. After expiry of the said period, the plaintiff started realising the rent from the defendants with clear understanding that they were accepted as month to month tenant. In
the circumstances, the defendant
No. 1 continued as a monthly tenant on payment of rent @ Rs. 1600/- per month and was not liable to vacate the suit premises under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act.
3. The trial court found that the defendants were tenants of the plaintiff for a fixed period and were not the monthly tenants and the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant
No. l from the suit premises after expiry of the lease. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred this Civil Revision application under Section 14(8) of the Act.
4. Mr. Eqbal, counsel for the petitioners, submitted that from the very beginning of the tenancy in the year 1971 the defendants-petitioners were inducted as month to month tenant and continued as such and continuation of their possession after expiry of the alleged fixed term under the lease (Exhibit 1) coupled with payment of rent to the landlord, brought into existence a statutory tenancy from month to month as contemplated by Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, and when it was tenancy from month to month the tenant cannot be evicted unless the requirement of Section 11 of the Act is complied with.
5. On the other hand.. Mr. Gangopadhyaya, counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the tenancy in question was fixed term tenancy and the trial court has rightly found it to be so. The defendants even did not obtain extension of the time in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. They are not entitled to resist the application of the landlord for their eviction on the expiry of the term of tenancy.
6. Exhibit 1 is the registered dead of Lease dated 9.9.1987 executed between the plaintiff and the defendant
No. 1. It was for a period of twenty four months from 9.9.1987 to 8.9.1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/-. The recital shows that the tenancy was for a fixed period. Although the defendants alleged that the plaintiff got the deed of Lease registered by use of force and coercion, but no body on behalf of defendant
No. 1 came to depose in the suit and as such the defendants failed to prove their allegation of use of force and coercion by the plaintiff at the time of registration of Exhibit 1 and/or in enhancement of amount of rent illegally from time to time under threats. Further from Exhibit 4 the notice dated 18.12.1989 sent by the plaintiff to the defendants it is evident that although the plaintiff received rent for the month of November, 1989 tendered through Post Office, but even after expiry of the specified period of Lease the defendants were required to pay rent till evicted from the premises in due course of law and as such it was made clear that acceptance of rent after such expiry shall not operate as a waiver on the part of the plaintiff.
7. In Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das and Ors. : [1961]3SCR813 It was held that where a contractual tenancy to which the rent control legislation applies has expired by efflux of time or by determination through notice to quit and the tenant continues in possession of the premises by virtue of statutory protection, acceptance of rent from the tenant by the landlord after the expiration or determination of the contractual tenancy will not afford ground for holding that the landlord has assented to a new contractual tenancy. Therefore, in my opinion, in the present case, the defendants did not acquire the status of a tenant holding over within the meaning of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
8. In Digambar Narain Chaudhary v. Commissioner of Trinut Division and Ors. : AIR1959Pat1 , a Full Bench of this Court held that the renewal of tenancy by application of Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act takes place only when there is no agreement to the contrary. In case of the Leases to which the Act applies there is statutory bar to the automatic renewal of the Lease even if there is no agreement to the contrary in the Lease itself. The tenant can extend the lease only by serving a notice upon the landlord as required under the Act. That being so, the mere acceptance of the rent in the assense of such notice will not bring about a renewal.
9. Under Section 11 of the Act, a tenant is liable for eviction after expiry of the period of tenancy. If, however, the tenant wants to obtain a renewal or extension of period, he has to take proceedings as provided in Section 18 of the Act. The tenant has to give the landlord, at least one month before the expiry of the time limited by the Lease, a written notice of his intention to do so. But even is such case, the extension cannot be allowed beyond twelve months. The combined effect of Sections 11 and 18 of the Act is that where the tenant has not served the landlord a notice intimating him his intention to extend the time limited by the Lease, he has no defence to an action for his ejectment. Mere acceptance of rent cannot be regarded as an unequivocal act signifying the landlord's assent to the continuance of tenancy as contemplated by Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
10. From the evidence on record it is established that the defendants were tenants of the plaintiff for the fixed period and they are not monthly tenants. In such circumstances, the period of Lease cannot be extended except in the manner laid down in Section 18 of the Act. Admittedly, no notice as required. under Section 18 of the Act was given to the plaintiff. The defendants, therefore, cannot illegally resist) the plaintiff's claim for their eviction on the expiry of the term of the tenancy. The defendants, in my opinion, are liable to ejectment on this ground alone. In view of the aforesaid position in law, I find no force in the submission of Mr. Eqbal.
11. In the result, there is no merit in this Civil Revision application and it is accordingly dismissed and the impugned judgment/order dated 7.5.1993 passed by the Subordinate Judge, First, Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur in Eviction Suit No. 373 of 1989 is confirmed. However, there will be no order as to costs.